[Philosophy] Course Review

[Bridget Kinsman]

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher who believed

the traditional values of the society of his day had cut religion and

philosophy-- and indeed, humanity itself--from their proper roots.  As a

response to the impending disaster he saw looming on the horizon, he

called for a thoroughgoing "transvaluation of values"--that is, a complete

rethinking of the whole philosophical and religious tradition that

produced those traditional values. The theories he developed in carrying

out this task set up something like a new myth, replacing the myth of

dispassionate rationality, established by Socrates and popularized by

Plato, with a myth of passionate irrationality, whose implications are

only now beginning to be understood.  (Nietzsche claimed, incidentally,

that his philosophy would not be fully understood until two hundred years

after it was written.)  The problem with understanding his ideas is that

he intentionally wrote in an unsystematic way (since constructing systems

was part of the old set of values).  Not only do some of his ideas

contradict his other ideas, but many of his books do not even pretend to

develop a single, well-argued set of ideas.  Rather, they contain

collections of his various ideas, often expressed in the fragmented form

of "aphorisms". In other words, Nietzsche would simply write a bunch of

insight papers, and then publish them whenever he had enough to make a

book!  He viewed himself more as a poet or even a prophet than as a

philosopher in any conventional sense.  Nevertheless, many of his insights

are directly addressed to philosophical issues; so if we do our best to

arrive at a general understanding of his main ideas, we should be able to

appreciate his significance for the philosophical tradition.



    Nietzsche himself (whose name, by the way, is pronounced as if it were

spelled "Neecha") was the son of a Lutheran pastor.  He was so intelligent

that he finished his formal education early and became a professor of

classics at the University of Basel when he was only 24.  In his youth he

developed a friendship with the musician, Richard Wagner, out of which

many of his early ideas developed.  After teaching for ten years, however,

he became disillusioned with the game of academia, and retired to a hut in

the mountains, where he spent the next ten years of his life as a recluse,

writing some of the most passionate and challenging books in the history

of western philosophy.


Nietzsche's transvaluation of values, the goal around which all of his other
ideas revolved, was primarily an attempt to break through the traditional
understanding of the boundaries that limit our moral and intellectual life,
and to establish in its place a new set of higher values.  The old values,
as represented especially by Christianity and the philosophical tradition
culminating in Kant, were, he argued, "life-denying"; they must therefore be
replaced by "life-affirming" values, the best examples of which are to be
found in the pagan religions and philosophies of ancient Greece.  Science,
with its narrow field of vision, interpreting the world as basically dead,
is not solely responsible for this faulty world view.  For the traditional
Christian morals accepted by the vast majority of the western world, and
defended in Kant's philosophy, also support notions such as love, humility,
and self-sacrifice; and such values, according to Nietzsche, have killed the
human spirit itself, and caused modern man to forget how to dance.

    Looking back to ancient Greek mythology, Nietzsche chose names for these
two types of outlook on life:  the traditional, life-denying outlook he
called "Apollonian" (after the God of the sun, named "Apollo"), while the
life- affirming outlook which Nietzsche hoped to put in its place he called
"Dionysian" (after the God of wine, named "Dionysius").  Whereas the
Apollonian outlook is conscious, rational, and calm, the Dionysian is
unconscious, irrational, and passionate.  The former gives rise to a "slave
morality", in which people adopt a "herd mentality" and view themselves as
determined by a fixed boundary line defining good and evil; in politics this
attitude gives rise to democracy (rule by the masses), thus encouraging
everyone to be alike in mediocrity.  By contrast, the latter gives rise to a
"master morality", in which people adopt a "hero mentality" and view
themselves as free to break out of the conventional ways of interpreting
right and wrong; in politics this attitude gives rise to aristocracy (rule
by a few people), thus encouraging the greatness of the human spirit to be
expressed.

    In these and other ways the Dionysian outlook enables us to go "beyond
good and evil", and live on a higher plane, characterized by what Nietzsche
called "the will to power".  The will to power is a form of radical freedom,
which solves the problem posed by Kant's distinction between nature and
freedom by demolishing both sets of boundary lines: "we must ... posit
hypothetically the causality of the will as the only causality."  We can
truly master ourselves, according to Nietzsche, only by courageously taking
hold of a freedom that refuses to be enclosed within any boundary, for only
in so doing can we affirm life as it actually is.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/top/top19


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bridget Kinsman" <bkinsman at ozemail.com.au>
To: "Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List" <philosophy at edulists.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Philosophy] Course Review


> Hi Richard,
> I've enjoyed reading the reflections of other year 12 teachers, and I
> thought I'd throw in my two cents.
> Firstly, although I found it quite a challenge to teach the course for the
> first time last year, by the end of it all I was quite impressed with the
> 'balance' of the texts, so far as they seemed to reflect the more
> significant and interesting philosophical issues that have grabbed the
> attention of thinkers. Even Murdoch, for all her complexity, is
particularly
> relevant and speaks for an increasing proportion of philosophers.
> Secondly, when you look at the content of the other humanities subjects
that
> compete for the interest of students, there might be the danger that
> watering down the course will not be received well by students and
teachers
> alike, such that this newly sprouted subject withers before it has
bloomed.
> There will always be some students who would prefer everything to be made
> easier.
> Thirdly, I'm not sure that the analysis of popular films, in place of
> traditional written texts, guarantees more philosophical depth in the
> classroom. Films can exemplify the philosophical issues that we analyse,
and
> I make extensive use of wonderful texts such as 'Waking Life'; however, I
> don't feel that they are substitutes for the current written philosophical
> texts.
> My gripe is probably more with the exam format than the texts. I would
> prefer to see an exam that requires students to evaluate more of the
> core/central arguments, as opposed to examining them on their knowledge of
> what is sometimes peripheral detail. I might add, however, that the
students
> in my class who scored well in the exam last year were, without exception,
> the better philosophers in the class (as opposed to rote learners).
> Finally, we might remember that the essay question is of considerable
weight
> in terms of the marks allocated for it. And it is pretty difficult to
write
> a good section C essay unless you have understood the key ideas in the
> texts, and have the ability to evaluate them in the appropriate analytical
> manner.
> By the way, I rather like the dramatic difference between the year 11 and
> the year 12 curricula. We've got 3 year 10 classes up and running now, and
I
> wouldn't want to disappoint students who have completed year 10 and then
> year 11 philosophy with a weaker year 12 curriculum.
> Great to see so many thinking about the subject!
> Jeff Kinsman (Uni High)
> P.S. Anyone who is in the area and wants to drop in for a coffee and an
> exchange of materials. . .
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au>
> To: "Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List"
<philosophy at edulists.com.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:35 PM
> Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
>
>
> > I like your thinking Lyn.  Sadly I've only seen 3 of the movies you've
> mentioned - I really have to get out more, or stay in more given they're
all
> on video now...  I think Minority Report raises some good issues that
could
> be worked into Unit 4 as a kind of commentary on science - Groundhog Day
> would be a good one for The Good Life in Unit 3, or even 50 First Dates or
> Memento (if we'd get away with it).  I wouldn't mind coupling Inherit the
> Wind with the DVD sent to all Australian schools called Unlocking the
> Mystery of Life, which I think does an excellent job of making Intelligent
> Design look intelligent.  I suspect moving to non-print texts would first
> need a shift toward the kind of thing Emmanuel suggested in terms of
having
> optional texts to choose from.  Once we cross that bridge it would be much
> easier to start to incorporate some of the more interesting movies into
the
> course as optional texts...
> >
> > Thanks for those two documents BTW - if it's ok with you I'll pop them
> onto the website.
> >
> > If anyone else has anything they're willing to share please send it
> through to me (rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au) and I'll upload it too.
> >
> > Incidentally, for those doing Yr 11 Philo you may be interested to know
> that some changes are coming through for all Victorian schools with
regards
> to the use of animals in teaching.  An Animal Ethics Committee has been
> established and all animal based activities will have to be approved by
it.
> Once it's up and running they will have a website and are looking for
> resources that would be relevant to any subject, but VCE Philosophy is one
> they're targetting in particular because of the animal rights component.
So
> if anyone has any materials/ideas/suggestions/requests etc. let me know
and
> I'll pass it on to the relevant people.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > Sent: Tue 28-Feb-06 10:40 PM
> > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> >
> >
> >
> > here's some ideas, for what they're worth.  i've used all of them over
the
> years, usually as movie/philosophy cafe evenings.  final cut (metaphysics
> and ethics), flowers for algernon (metaphysics, ethics), i, robot
> (artifiicial intelligence, ethics), inherit the wind (oldie but a goodie
> about creationism vs. evolution), let him have it (docudrama about death
> penalty), rashomon (japanese movie that explores epistemological issues),
> rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead (existentialism), the truman show.
> > does any of that help?
> > lyn.
> >
> > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Mon, 27 Feb 2006
> 14:18:42 +1100 wrote:
> > > I haven't seen What the Bleep yet.  Waking life is good, but a bit
> scatter gun.  I wonder if we could come up with a decent movie for each
> theme ala Emmanuel's suggestion...?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > Sent: Mon 27-Feb-06 1:54 PM
> > > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > i would crop the murdoch and include something like "waking life" or,
> even better, "what the bleep do we know?", which is fantastic despite some
> poor acting!
> > >
> > > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Mon, 27 Feb 2006
> 10:40:23 +1100 wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the feedback Lyn.  I'd like to see a non-print text
> included too... any suggestions?  If you had to crop something, what would

> it be??
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > Sent: Thu 23-Feb-06 10:33 AM
> > > > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au; philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi all,
> > > > have to disagree with greg on the king.  i feel it's highly
relevant -
> especially when i have a mix of theists, atheists and agnostics in the
room.
> turing is little value without the objections, but i tend not to give my
> students the objections straight away.  instead i ask them to come up with
> some ideas, which are noted on the board, then i hand out the actual
> objections and we classify their own thoughts under the different
headings.
> > > > i don't actually have a problem with any of the readings.  our
school
> doesn't have great resources, but i have enough time to do the course with
3
> weeks at the end just for revision.  my kids usually perform at or above
the
> state average on the end of year exam.  some modern (non-print?) texts
could
> be good.  there NEEDS TO BE at least one SAC that is orally presented -
the
> running of a philosophy cafe, a speech, a role-play, whatever.  but if we
> seriously want them doing philosophy and not just regurgitating the ideas
of
> dead white men they need to be assessed on their ability to speak!
> > > >
> > > > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006
> 12:38:27 +1100 wrote:
> > > > > Hi Clare & Greg & Ian - thought I'd combine response here.  Yes,
> sorry I forget to say that I'm on the review panel.  I went to the first
> meeting last Thursday and will go to another next Thursday.  It all feels
> quite rushed to me as the preliminary report on changes is supposed to be
> finished by the end of this term from memory - which is why I'm keen to
get
> as many responses/suggestion ASAP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Greg - I now have another metaphor for philosophy;
> intellectual tennis - banging arguments from one side of the net back to
the
> other.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there are also a drastic shortage of secondary sources as
> part of the course - I think that if we're going to have originals that it
> would also be useful to have a bit of modern scholarship based on the
> extracts included too... at least there'd be less of a vacuum for
newcomers
> like Ian - it's no mean task to get Philo up and running from scratch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that VCAA is keen to keep Philosophy rigorous - the
> Specialist Maths of Humanities (although you can't do Specialist without
> doing Maths Methods in Yr 11) - but I'm concerned that we are trying to
> squeeze in too much; which is ok for schools who can afford to run
> Philosophy camps and the like, but less realistic for the poorer resourced
> sites... and I don't think anyone would want to restrict access to
something
> like philosophy based purely on socio-economic background.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Murphy,
Clare
> I
> > > > > Sent: Wed 22-Feb-06 9:03 AM
> > > > > To: Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > > > Hello Richard,
> > > > > My name is Clare McKay and I teach @Eltham High School. I am on
the
> mailing list and can now reply. Generally I agree with your
recommendations.
> Are you on the review panel?
> > > > > Clare
> > > > >
> > > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Greyruin
> > > > > Sent: Tue 21-Feb-06 11:09 PM
> > > > > To: Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > > > I do agree, Richard. The King is great - but irrelevant, and I
have
> to
> > > > > confess that the Murdoch just seems murky. Right, let's get back
to
> > > > > practising philosophy, not just memorising stuff. I know, it hurts
> the kids
> > > > > who can only memorise, but, then, I've always felt uncomfortable
> about
> > > > > tennis. Seems that all that attention to ball skills and being
able
> to belt
> > > > > the jolly thing back at 250 m per second, or whatever, basically
> > > > > inconvenienced us skinny intellectual dudes with thin wrists and
> spaghetti
> > > > > arms.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Turing is good - but leave out the objections, right. My kids
> thought
> > > > > that was pointless. I'm not sure about dumping Aristotle
altogether,
> though.
> > > > > We could look at his logic, perhaps. Yes, on Kuhn. Find something
> more
> > > > > closely connected with Popper. That's a bit strained at the
moment.
> How long
> > > > > do we have to make a plea?
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > philosophy mailing list
> > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > philosophy mailing list
> > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> >
> >
> > ---
> > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > _______________________________________________
> > philosophy mailing list
> > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > philosophy mailing list
> > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> >
> _______________________________________________
> philosophy mailing list
> philosophy at edulists.com.au
> http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy